Our MSc Media, Power & Public Affairs student Eleanor Fogden offers a theoretical and personal response to a year of Covid lockdown. Thanks Eleanor and we hope you all enjoy this:
The 23rd of March marks one year since the first lockdown. Boris Johnson has called for a national day of reflection. Some people will reflect on the loss of life because of the pandemic. Some may reflect on the challenges of homeschooling and working. Some may reflect on how we filled time – from decorating, day drinking or binging on banana bread and rewatching Tiger King. I have been reflecting on the reporting and response to government efforts both through traditional news media and social media and the parallels between the Covid crisis and the crisis of conflict reporting.
When considering the communication of conflict within media, a key theory relates to the ideas of Ruge and Galtung. They suggest that conflict is reported like sports, with narratives of competition, fighting, being seen to have a winner’s or loser’s mentality, and regulation of truth to benefit the cause of war. They suggest that reporting should instead be similar to health journalism, examining the cause, effects, and routes to prevention.
Naturally, you would assume that the reporting of a health crisis would be addressed using the techniques of health journalism. We know the facts of the virus. It is often spread through droplets in the air and originated from Wuhan, China; mild symptoms include temperature, cough and loss of taste and smell. We know how to prevent it through mask-wearing, hand washing and distance (hands, face, space for old times’ sake). Now there is a vaccine. Breakthroughs and drops in numbers can be reported with hope and with an end in sight. However, what is unique about the reporting of Covid-19 is that it has not followed this structure. There has been more focus on comparison with other countries about how we tackled the virus. It is expressed as a competition.
A common theme throughout reporting in the UK was examining the response to the virus in New Zealand. New Zealand had an instantaneous shut down without concerns about herd immunity and has a death count of just 26. The lack of cases in comparison to the UK suggests that New Zealand took the right action and because of this, the media has focused on the re-opening of New Zealand and how we could have been New Zealand (see the Guardian‘s Britain been more like New Zealand? February 2021). This narrative structure has a winning and losing mentality. Instead of the UK media focusing on our success as we would in the progress of war, we are “losing”. We were promised a short lockdown when the first happened and things would be back to normal. It was reported that New Zealand’s approach was drastic. Instead, a year on we have “lost”, with colossal deaths in a third lockdown, whilst New Zealand has “won the fight” against covid with limited deaths and every day on social media platforms we see images of people enjoying concerts and clubs.
We can also see this idea through the use of linguistics to create a propaganda of hope through patriotic rhetoric. This involves stories of inspiration, charitable efforts, and self-sacrifice described as “a stitch in time save nine”. This reflects the legitimacy of a government-enforced lockdown. It implies public coherence is a patriotic duty. It draws attention away from scandals and those being let down by services. Those working on the front-line are depicted in a similar light to soldiers, being described as our heroes. Please don’t let me be misunderstood- of course, they are heroes, they are our backbone working hours upon hours and we should be beyond thankful for their efforts. But lack of PPE, disorganisation due to government involvement (or lack thereof) and complete burnout with no resources, are covered up. Tabloids encourage a nationwide clap with members of parliament taking part whilst deciding that there should be no pay rise. This rhetoric is almost echoed in that of soldiers at the end of Wilfred Owen’s poem “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” – it is sweet and fitting to die for the homeland.
However, we can distinguish from the reporting of the Covid crisis the regulation of truth. Previously in times of war, media have been regulated to prevent a lack of legitimisation of conflict and to keep public spirits high. The development of new media, such as social media, means that if the government were to try and regulate during times of crisis through media, it would be near impossible – as reflected in the reporting of Covid. People on the frontline have a platform. They can and continue to expose the reality of working, living or grieving without the input of an editor having to follow regulation. Individuals have the ability to call out government actions and place a spotlight on those exploiting rules or norms. Take Domonic Cummings travelling to test his eyesight. Once the news broke, complaining and disdain didn’t stay home, it was on Twitter, Facebook, TikTok; it was everywhere and many were in agreement that his actions were appalling and a reflection on a divide between government and people. The “us and them” mentality used in conflict reporting came not from regulated media, but from the public and social media. This differs from how the mentality is created but could be a nightmare for a government trying to create a message of hope and fighting spirit through media.
Covid will never be forgotten, rightly so. Its impact will be felt for many years. It’s been a strange and troubling time. The parallel between conflict and covid reporting is an area that would be interesting to examine, perhaps best with the hindsight of when things are more steady. This is speculation, but I think there are similarities that can be explored. Looking at Covid from an individual point of view, when I had it, it felt like a fight because it was horrible and having contracted it going to work didn’t feel worth it. I wasn’t in healthcare. I’m certain that my two weeks spent in bed eating ice lollies watching old horror films, coughing and listening to the clapping from neighbours and not being able to join because I was so weak I couldn’t stand, isn’t worth comparing to a conflict nor should be reported with messages of hope. We should remember those who have passed and should hold those accountable who had the power to prevent the spread to today’s catastrophic levels.
